Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

In the first instance I agree entirely with what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has said about the procedure under which this amendment from the Seanad has come before the House. This is not a Bill that was sprung upon us as a result of an emergency that occurred today or yesterday. This Bill has been in the pipeline for six years since 1999. For a Bill that long in the pipeline one of the most crucial amendments in the legislation should not be dealt with within half an hour as an amendment coming from the Seanad.

Why was this amendment not tabled in the Dáil? The Bill was introduced in the Dáil. It is expected that the major debate should take place in the House in which a Bill is introduced and that all the major provisions should already be contained. This did not happen and the Minister merely flagged the intention.

The major statement in the Government manifesto concerning proceeds of crime legislation and the Criminal Assets Bureau was a promise to introduce proceeds of corrupt acts legislation and deal with white-collar corruption. I believe the term used was "corruption assets bureau". This was two and a half years ago and yet the legislation went through both Houses until an emergency motion came at the end of proceedings in the Seanad. Why could we not deal with this properly? I would support the Bill's recommittal to Committee Stage for a proper discussion of its implication.

Having said that about the procedures, this is the way in which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform operates. He is a Minister who does not really introduce legislation; he introduces amendments. The corpus of amendments is always larger than the original Bill. It would be great to see the Minister abide by normal protocol. I always understood that the contents of this legislation were encompassed by the original legislation introduced ten years ago by the Labour, Democratic Left and Fine Gael Government of the day. After a very tragic incident, the murder of Veronica Guerin in 1996, it was determined in subsequent discussion that substantial action needed to be taken to deal with those who were enriching themselves through the proceeds of crime. The legislation as I understood it encompassed exactly what we are debating today. However, the Government that followed never sought to extend its compass to the proceeds of white-collar crime and enrichment.

The definition in the original Proceeds of Crime Act states:

"proceeds of crime" means any property obtained or received at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by or as a result of or in connection with the commission of an offence;

I do not see what more is contained in the amendment before us today.

I ask the Minister of State to outline the details of the second part of the amendment. While white-collar corrupt enrichment has been going on all the time, neither the Garda nor the Criminal Assets Bureau has seen fit to pursue it. It is one matter to pursue a small time criminal or a drug pusher or even a large-scale criminal like Martin Cahill, who went to the welfare exchange and was unemployed. It is another matter to pursue somebody who is a pillar of society and has achieved pecuniary enrichment through so-called business activities.

How will this Act operate? I believe the provisions of the existing legislation were adequate to take proceedings to address this type of offence. It is very obvious when somebody goes to the labour exchange while living in a big house in Rathmines and driving a big car. However, it is different with a normal business person who through bribery or other corrupt acts has obtained further enrichment. How will the Garda operate this legislation? What will be the modus operandi? Will we trawl through the tribunal reports to see where bribes were given and where people enriched themselves, whether they have admitted it or not? What instructions will be given to the Criminal Assets Bureau and Garda to implement this legislation? The provisions already exist and the question is how they will be implemented.

Section 16A deals with hearsay evidence. As a non-lawyer, if it can be agreed that certain witnesses and certain documentation need not be produced in court, why should it be done? An argument exists in that respect. Otherwise time is being wasted on bureaucracy and research. Section 16A(2) states: "Evidence that is admissible by virtue of subsection (1) shall not be admitted if the Court is of the opinion that in the interests of justice it ought not to be admitted." This is a fairly stark statement. An opinion does not require much support. All of us have opinions which have little value or weight. The section does not even refer to a "reasonable" opinion. The caveat seems rather meaningless and the protection is rather meaningless. It will end up that in all cases hearsay evidence will be introduced and this will become the norm. It is unlikely the opinion of the court will be of substance because it does not have to be supported; it is discretionary.

I have no problem with these measures. It has taken a long time to initiate a process that was already included in the legislation. I do not know why there was a Bill in 1999 or why it has taken two and a half years for the Minister for finalise this. Why did he not introduce the amendment when the legislation was initially before the Dáil?

This year is the tenth anniversary of the Criminal Assets Bureau, an important tool in the fight against crime. The proceeds of crime come from deprived communities, not just in terms of drug money and money laundering but also in terms of planning corruption and other similar fraud, where long-suffering residents lose out from the pollution of their environment. This money should be earmarked for reinvestment in the community instead of going into the maw of the Department of Finance from which it will never emerge in any recognisable form. It should be redirected into areas where the damage is caused.

See this speech in context